Cancel All Open Orders

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the real-funds/account-state consequence, which is meaningful context, but says nothing about reversibility, whether partial failure is possible across many orders, or what the response reports.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the dangerous-operation warning front-loaded, which is the right ordering. Minor flaw: the sentences run together without punctuation between 'slugs' and 'This operation', slightly hurting readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a single fully documented body parameter and rich destructive annotations, the core call is adequately covered. The gaps are moderate: no differentiation from the other cancel tools and no hint about the outcome of a bulk cancel, which matters for a non-idempotent destructive operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains that an empty slugs array cancels all orders. The description's 'optionally filtered by market slugs' merely restates the schema without adding format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cancel all open orders') plus the scope modifier 'optionally filtered by market slugs', which is clear enough to act on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like cancel_order, cancel_multiple_orders, or modify_multiple_orders, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'LIVE ACCOUNT ACTION' prefix signals this is a real-money mutation, which implicitly nudges caution, and the slug filter implies bulk-cancel-everything is the default behavior. There is no explicit when-to-use versus cancel_multiple_orders or cancel_order, and no stated prerequisite such as authentication scope.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.